Amen. Itâs easy to laugh, but we merely laugh at ourselves. After 17-odd years helping support this community, Iâm increasingly of the view there isnât an easy solution (NO: not AI, not blockchain, not [meme]). Indeed, if it seems easy, weâre just low-balling the problem.
But easily missed in this weeks meet-up Mark Bernstein noteâs is this observation (video at time c.58:26) where he sayâs âCommunity makes this practicalâ. The point is not individual (lest I appear to point to own involvement). The point is far deeper and one I identify with deeply. It is the communication within the overall community that enriches the design space. Even if some only turn up to kvetch, it still tells a tale. They may be right: viewed from where they sit it may be that nothing makes sense. Indeed, the most fascinating part of 14+ years of writing aTbRef is learning whatâin a way I couldnât guessâis not obvious.
For those looking from a wider view, we see the role of the human in the loop. One day, albeit not today, some software might âjustâ figure this all for us. Enlightened self interest of work needed doing now tells us to engage.
I think the biggest lacuna in understanding of KM/PKM systems is the role of the human mind. We are so obsessed with the value of our time (to otherwise do ⊠what?) that we donât engage. All the most interesting Tinderbox use Iâve seen over the years shows engagement by the user. Donât misread that as âlots of codeâ. Again, as in this weekâs meet-up talk, you may not need [function] and donât worry if you donât. Use what you need.
From my experience, PKM is not a case of âcanât the computer do it because Iâm too lazy to contribute.â